Palestine Action activists jailed over factory raid

[Twiglets1]

The BBC report that four Palestine Action activists have been jailed after causing £1.2m of damage at a UK site of an Israel-based defence firm.

Charlotte Head, 30, Samuel Corner, 23, Leona Kamio, 30, and Fatema Rajwani, 21, were convicted of criminal damage in a retrial after they broke into the Elbit Systems factory near Bristol in August 2024.

Corner was jailed for seven years and eight months for criminal damage and inflicting grievous bodily harm on a police sergeant. The judge, Mr Justice Johnson, said Corner had had no justification for the "extreme and gratuitous force" used.

The case is believed to be the first time that convictions for criminal damage have been classified as being connected to terrorism.

The judge said their actions had aimed to influence the government.

Head, who drove the prison van into the compound, was sentenced to five years in prison, Kamio was also handed a five-year jail term, and Rajwani received a prison sentence of four years and eight months.

The offenders will not qualify for early release from prison provisions and the Parole Board will assess their risk to the public when it determines when they can be set free.

All four will also serve an additional one year on a licence in the community at the end of their terms.

Green Party Leader Zack Polanski said it was "gut-wrenching to see four young people jailed for direct action against an arms supplier to Israel".

He added that the sentence was a "truly dangerous attack on the right to protest".

Labour MP John McDonnell said the scale of the sentences was "truly shocking".

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce950111xk7o

They were engaged in terrorist activity for Palestine Action.

Palestine Action is currently proscribed as a terrorist group under the Terrorism Act 2000, making membership of, material support for, or displaying items in support of the group a criminal offence in the UK.

That doesn’t engage at all with the piece by Robertson who raises concerns about procedures.

People can have concerns about "procedures" in this case @Ellen2shoes but it's unrealistic to expect many of us to be "outraged" by the treatment of this group.

Outraged is a strong word and I won't be feeling it for people engaging in terrorist activity. I doubt many people will who don't sympathise with their aims.

The upholding of correct legal procedures affects us all and it’s important to recognise any diversion imo.

I agree that justice should be done and to be seen to be done. I think a lot of us feel for the policewoman and our overwhelming outrage is towards Corner's violence.

For me, this has been compounded by the fact that three of the group were threatening and abusive to the security guard - like the policewoman doing his job. Thanks for the extra info @noblegiraffe

Added to this the continuing self-righteousnes of the group - if I remember correctly it was Charlotte Head who still says it is the best thing she has ever done. One can only conclude that they are unrepentant and would gladly do the same again?

How embarrassing for Geoffrey Robertson KC to have written that article without having read the judge's sentencing remarks.

If he had, then he would know that the reason that the jury and public were unaware of the terrorist connection was because the defendants requested it.

The difficulty with this is that he seems to regard the protest as non violent, which does not tally with the information in the sentencing remarks

It can hardly be a surprise to be sentenced as a terrorist if one chooses to become a member of an organisation proscribed as terrorist

The sentencing for terrorism is part of the law, whetter you like it or not and they should have been made aware of this

I think what I truly dislike about these sort of cases is the double standards. Had they been Tommy Robinson goons attacking a target then the chattering classes would be singing a different tune

Are you going to retract your comment now you know it was at the request of the defendants, or do you think their wishes should have been overruled?

There is a reference/link in Robertson’s article to this? He did not ‘forget’ to read them. Of course they wanted to uphold the reporting restrictions - the legislation is there in the first place to ensure the integrity of the jury’s decisions.

For the final time, Robertson’s concerns in the article are focused on the unprecedented decision by a judge to sideline a jury and aggravate charges citing a ‘ terrorist connection’ when there had not been a charge by the CPS or a conviction by a jury of terrorism:

At a secret hearing during the first trial, Mr Justice Johnson had ruled that the protest carried a “terrorist connection”. This was unprecedented in the history of direct action trials. His reasoning was that the defendants’ purpose was to “influence” the British government – which is the purpose of almost every political protest ever mounted. The judge’s ruling was kept secret from both the jury and the public, and the UK press was barred from reporting on it.

The judge’s ruling was kept secret from both the jury and the public, and the UK press was barred from reporting on it.

At the defendants’ request! The judge said there was a strong public interest in reporting it but deferred to their wishes. So blame Palestine Action for that. Do you agree that Palestine Action made the wrong call there then?

And yes, the action was designed to influence the government but that was not why it was ruled to have a terrorist connection. It was that and the significant harm the action caused.

There is legislation to protect the press and the public gaining access in order to preserve the integrity of the jury. They had been charged with criminal damage so why would they take up Johnson’s offer to lift this once he had cited a terrorist connection.

Not sure why you have fixated on this rather than the point of his piece - which I won’t repeat again!

Do you think the law regarding this should be changed, @Ellen2shoes ? With regard to sentencing options, I mean

Johnson has made a final decision to take it to the High Court.

Robertson is not alone in his misgivings regarding the case and there are very many others like him within the legal profession who are shaken by the case itself and now the ongoing attempt to hold the defence barrister in contempt:

‘’Garden Court Chambers said it ‘stands in full support’ of Menon. In a statement, the chambers said: ‘The unprecedented contempt of court proceedings brought against Rajiv, a senior silk and former head of chambers, undermine and diminish our system of criminal justice. The administration of justice depends upon an independent bar willing and able to act in the best interests of their clients, fearlessly and with integrity.’’

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/contempt-case-against-silk-can-continue/5127142.article

To answer your question @Sulgari, I think the law should be scrutinised. I’m no expert but even I can see that there are unprecedented manoeuvres being made within the framework of our legal system, of which the jury system is the undisputed jewel.

Or is it?!

It is interesting

The jury is the arbiter of the facts

the judge of the law

The sentence is purely for the judge

I’m sorry I don’t have the energy to debate with you the way in which s69 has been manipulated here.

It’s worth reading Menon’s closing speech for some balance.